The two infectious diseases spreading across America

The two infectious diseases spreading across America

My op-ed in The Hill.We must have a reasonable discussion about opening society. This means the toxic public discourse must be stopped.

The massive number of unemployment applications in March – more than 10 million
– was a stark reminder to policymakers that an indefinite pause on the
economy is not an option. At a certain point, in the near future,
Americans have to start working again and spending money. The debate
over when and how this will happen will be fierce.

The primary
challenge will not be setting the policy itself but avoiding the
temptation to take political potshots at those who imperfectly try. Such
restraint requires discipline, grace, and a willingness to give each
other the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, such qualities have been
severely lacking in our media and politics.

There is a reasonable
way to discuss balancing our health concerns with the reopening of
society. How and when will we move from a risk containment strategy of shelter-in-place orders to a more sustainable risk management
strategy? Do we really believe we can contain all risk indefinitely? At
what cost? At what point will local authorities feel comfortable with
the level of preparedness in their public health system – sufficient
testing, ventilators, and hospital capacity – and allow a safe return to
work? Shouldn’t there be reasonable timelines for our citizens, given
that the entire purpose of lockdowns is to slow the spread and allow the
health system to catch up to the pandemic? What metrics are we using
assess preparedness? Given what we know about the most vulnerable
populations and the nature of the virus, which restrictions will remain
in place for a longer time and for whom?

Such questions will, and
should, be answered differently by each state, city, and town. An
indefinite federally imposed national lockdown is just as foolish as an
immediate federal reopening. But these questions need to be asked— and
answered— in good faith.

Sadly, the simple task of giving each other the space to have this discussion has proven elusive.

Tragic
news has become political ammunition. As the United States surpassed
other nations in total coronavirus cases (likely due to more testing and
our nation’s vast size), high-profile figures like Hillary Clinton jumped to the chance to blame the president, as she snidely wrote on Twitter, “He did promise ‘America First.’”

Over-the-top, bad faith accusations are repeated breathlessly as uncontested fact by prominent journalists. A recent NBC News column asserted that President Trump is “putting the health of the stock market over that of millions of Americans.” Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin hyperbolically stated that “many of these deaths will be the minimum price we pay for Trump’s utter incompetence and willful blindness.”

Even expressing optimism about potential treatments such as chloroquine is off-limits, as major media outlets (here and here)
went as far as to blame President Trump for a man’s death after he
ingested chloroquine phosphate, confusing the substance for the
anti-malarial drug touted by Trump. The media stunningly left out that
the man actually ingested fishbowl cleaner.

These
bad faith takes are the new normal in politics, but they have no place
in a global crisis. This rhetoric destroys our ability to have the
difficult conversations needed to properly address the pandemic.

Going
forward, it will be easy to claim moral righteousness by insisting on
indefinite lockdowns in order to save lives. But such suggestions are
also unrealistic and ignore the lives being ruined by an economic
freefall. Many will sanctimoniously ask “how many lives is it worth to
save some jobs?” This is a terribly disingenuous, bad-faith question,
presuming that anyone concerned about American’s livelihoods – itself a
public health concern – is somehow a heartless robot.

There will
be strong temptation to moralize breathlessly how a given decision
caused harm or death. These accusations will be impossible to counter
because the counterfactual is impossible to prove. The accusers will
know this but will partake in the political opportunism anyway.
Resisting this blame game requires an understanding that everyone is doing the best they can. These are extraordinary circumstances, and we are all making judgements with limited information.

As
coronavirus spreads through our cities and towns, we must address the
contagion spreading through our public discourse. Fierce debate should
be expected, but we must engage in it without the partisan, petty finger
pointing that has infected our country.

No leader, from a
small-town mayor to the president, wishes harm upon our country.
Examples of American grit and resilience have been prolific. Companies
are stepping up to manufacture personal protective equipment (PPE) and
ventilators. Doctors are coming out of retirement. Congress injected
over $2 trillion into the economy to keep it from collapse.

Everyone
wants America to succeed. If we start from that common understanding,
we might avail ourselves of the tools to beat this pandemic together.